RAMASWAMI PILLAI AND ANOTHER Vs. THAVASI KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit property is situate at a distance of two furlongs 55 ft. and 7 inches from the Madurai Municipal limits. The common case of the parties it that, in or about 1935, the appellants herein became the lessees of the suit property which was a vacant site on that date. The respondent herein purchased the property or about 1951 from the original lessor. The appellants herein put up superstructures on the site soon after the lease. The present suit (O.S. No. 76 of 1964) was instituted by the respondent herein in the court of the District Munsif of the Thirumangalam for ejectment of the appellants from the suit site. The appellants herein resisted the claim. Based on the pleadings between the parties, the learned District Munsif framed six issues. However, during the pendency of the suit, the Madras City Tenants Protection Amendment Act, 1964 (Madras Act XVI of 1964) came into force. Purporting to rely on S. 3 of the said Act, the appellants herein filed I.A. No. 1165 of 1964 praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the same abated under S. 3 of the Act. The learned District Munsif by his judgment and order dated 15th February, 1965, allowed the application filed by the appellants and in view of that dismissed the suit. The respondent herein preferred A.S. No. 51 of 1965 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment and order dated 9th September, 1965 came to the conclusion that the Madras City Tenants Protection Act did not apply to the area in which the suit property was situate and consequently, the suit did not abate as contended for by the appellants. In this view he set aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif and remanded the suit for fresh disposal after trial on all the issues framed by the learned District Munsif.

(2.) It is against this judgment and order, the present C.M.A. has been filed by the appellants.

(3.) The sole question that is argued in the present appeal is as to the applicability of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act to the area is which the suit property is situate. Mr. V. Ramaswami, the learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that by virtue of the definition of the expression "building" occurring in S. 2(1) of the Act, as amended by the Madras Act XVI of 1964, it must be held that the Madras City Tenants Protection Act applied to the area in which the suit property is situate and consequently by virtue of S. 3 of the Madras Act XVI of 1964 the suit itself has abated. S. 2(1) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act 1922, as amended by Madras Act XIX of 1955 is as follows: